In a joint meeting with a representative of the Landesbetrieb, Straßen, Brücken und Gewässer (State Office for Roads, Bridges and Waters, LSBG) of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg on 15 May 2023, the research group presented the results of the surveys in connection with the participation process for the redevelopment of the Elbchaussee (Elbchaussee Dialogue). The Elbchaussee redevelopment was one of a total of five planning projects that were intensively analysed by the CIMT research group over several years in order to investigate the effects of consultative citizen participation on political attitudes, among other things.
Various participation formats were carried out as part of the planning process, e.g. online dialogues and workshops. Further information on the Elbchaussee dialogue and the participation formats carried out can be found on the website of the LSBG.
This planning and participation process was analysed by the CIMT research group at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf independently (i.e. without being commissioned or influenced by the City of Hamburg), primarily with the help of stakeholder interviews and surveys of residents in Altona. For this purpose, a randomly selected part of the population was surveyed in selected neighbourhoods in Altona in 2021. Further information on the research group’s surveys can be found here.
Selected results
Participants in the participation process had a high social status (education, income), were significantly older, often male – cyclists and car drivers!
Motive for participation in particular: To influence a decision.
There is a tendency to perceive a lack of influence of participation on the political decision.
This is consistent with the results of the stakeholder interviews and the document analysis. Here, too, the policy impact of the consultation is rather low.
Restrictions due to paradigms and requirements from higher political levels were particularly obstructive.
Nevertheless, the planning process and its results were assessed quite positively by the public overall, but the participants showed a more negative assessment of the results of the planning process.
The process has an influence on satisfaction with local institutions.
It should be noted that the presentation essentially represents the status of the findings in spring 2023. Additional analyses have been carried out since then. The results of this case study are therefore presented in more detail in Laura Mark`s dissertation.
In this presentation for the Düsseldorfer Familientisch, a network of various stakeholders in Düsseldorf, Tobias Escher explained why mobility and housing are closely linked. A transformation of the current car-centred mobility system is doomed to fail without a simultaneous change in housing policy – and not just in cities. He began by explaining that sustainable mobility is more than just making transport more environmentally friendly, but also targets traffic noise and road safety. Using the example of housing for families, he showed how their concerns and needs differ greatly between those who live in urban centres and families who settle in the proverbial ‘little house in the country’. For both groups, he presented a range of measures that can be used to promote more sustainable mobility options. These range from promoting opportunities for working and shopping nearby to more appropriate pricing of public space.
The event took place on 12 June 2024. There is more information available from the official record of the event.
In this article in the eNewsletter Netzwerk Bürgerbeteiligung, Tobias Escher, Katharina Holec and Laura Mark make the argument for a more realistic view of the role of citizen participation in the sustainability transformation. Based on four theses, they explain that conflict resolution – even though this is often associated with participation – does not do justice to the role of public consultations, but that consultations are nevertheless indispensable in the political shaping of transformation.
Summary
The article puts forward a total of four theses, each of which is supported by findings from the research of the CIMT project. These are as follows:
Thesis 1: Citizen participation can lead to mutual understanding, but generally not to a consensus on fundamental conflicts of interest.
Thesis 2: Citizen participation provides an insight into existing interests and concerns, but not a representative impression of public opinion
Thesis 3: The results of participation do not guarantee support for sustainable transformation measures.
Thesis 4: Citizen participation is a support, but not a substitute for political decisions.
However, this does not imply that citizen participation can be dispensed with! Instead, good participation can provide support by giving information and thus, for example, overcome resistance that is primarily based on a lack of knowledge. It also uses local knowledge to recognise problems and develop new ideas where necessary. Finally, it provides a forum in which wishes and concerns can be expressed and arguments exchanged. This can lead to less protest. It can help to identify lines of conflict more clearly and to better understand the causes of conflicts. Citizen participation can thus contribute to dealing with the conflicts inherent in the transformation, but it will not usually resolve them. Last but not least, citizen participation remains a democratic imperative, as citizens should be able to shape far-reaching decisions.
Publication
Escher, Tobias; Holec, Katharina; Mark, Laura (2024): Akzeptanz für Transformationsprojekte durch Bürgerbeteiligung? Ein Plädoyer für mehr Realismus. Hg. v. Stiftung Mitarbeit. Bonn (eNewsletter Netzwerk Bürgerbeteiligung, 02/2024). Online verfügbar hier.
In a joint meeting with representatives of the district office Altona in Hamburg on 7 December 2023, the research group presented the results of the data collection in connection with the freiRaum Ottensen project. FreiRaum Ottensen was one of the five projects in which surveys and interviews were conducted. The focus was on the public consultations in which the general public was able to participate. More information on the project freiRaum Ottensen and the participation formats carried out can be found here.
Selected results
The population in Ottensen largely perceives a need for improvement in transport and is relatively positive about the transport transition overall.
Around 50% of the population have heard about the participation process for freiRaum Ottensen, and around 16% have taken part. In comparison with other processes, these are relatively high figures, although the usual over-representation of people with high school diploma, men and older people can be seen despite a wide varieties of participation formats offered to different target groups.
The discussion during the different participation formats was perceived as constructive and respectful, although conflicts and gaps in the representation of all interests were acknowledged.
In this project, the policy process was comparatively open to citizens and participants were able to shape the content of the planning outcome.
For around a third of the population and half of the participants, the participation process had an influence on their satisfaction with the district authority. However, this influence was not always positive: for example, one in four participants was more satisfied with the district authority at the end, but just as many reported less satisfaction.
Two thirds of the population rated the adopted measures as positive.
(Statements on the population generally refer to the subgroup of people with a high school diploma – see detailed information on the representativeness of the surveys)
In this article in regierungsforschung.de, the academic online magazine of the NRW School of Governance, Tobias Escher explores the question of whether the participation formats required for a participatory development of the transformation to a more sustainable society can also be implemented in an ecologically sustainable manner. In other words, the question is how the principle of (ecologically) sustainable governance can be upheld in the democratically important area of political participation.
Abstract
The transformation to a sustainable society can only succeed through the involvement of all stakeholders. At the same time, sustainable governance requires that these participation processes also fulfil the requirements of sustainability. Based on a systematic discussion of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by various political participation formats, this article argues that in view of the functional and normative significance of political participation, its environmental footprint does usually not contradict the demand for sustainable governance.
Key findings
The implementation of participation formats generates greenhouse gas emissions due to the energy required, the mobility of the participants and, where applicable, catering and accommodation. Crucially, the level of emissions depends on whether the formats are held in person or digitally (see table below).
For local face-to-face formats, the emissions from the event venue and mobility of participants are comparatively low and only amount to around 2kg of CO2-equivalents per person in the scenario analysed. The emissions increase considerably as soon as participants have to travel further (using fossil-fuelled transport) – in the underlying scenario by a factor of twelve to 24kg. This is roughly equivalent to the average emissions from a 100km car journey.
In contrast, online participation formats only generate very low emissions (around 0.3kg per person in the scenario). Nevertheless, the choice of participation formats cannot be based solely on their short-term ecological costs, but must also take into account normative requirements for inclusion and popular control. Digital participation formats in particular represent significant barriers to participation for already disadvantaged population groups (see also our DigiBeSt-report).
Overall, participation has an ecological footprint, but this is generally justified by functional and normative considerations because after all, governance should not only be sustainable, but above all democratic!
face-to-face participation
digital participation
local
(inter)-regional
asynchron
synchron
energy
heating & climatisation of event venue
operation of end user devices & data centres
more data intensive communication
mobility
travel
travel
not applicable
catering & accommodation
catering
accommodation
not applicable
Direct environmental impact of different participation formats. The darker the colour, the greater the respective emissions from this source. The emissions generally increase with the number of participants and the duration of the participation format.
The two junior research groups in Social-Ecological Research CIMT and MoveMe held a joint final event showcasing some results of their research into the transition to sustainable mobility. The event took place online on 26. April 2024. More information is available in German.
In this article in the journal Policy & Internet, Tobias Escher and Bastian Rottinghaus explore the question of how participation in local consultation processes (on planning of cycling infrastructure) affects attitudes towards local politics. To this end, in 2018 they examined a total of three participation procedures in which the cities of Bonn, Cologne (district Ehrenfeld) and Moers consulted their citizens on local cycling infrastructure. In each case, for five weeks citizens were able to submit, comment on and evaluate proposals through an online platform. In total, more than 3,000 proposals were collected which were to be incorporated into the subsequent cycling planning (see further information on the Cycling Dialogues project).
Abstract
In order to generate legitimacy for policies and political institutions, governments regularly involve citizens in the decision-making process, increasingly so via the Internet. This research investigates if online participation does indeed impact positively on legitimacy beliefs of those citizens engaging with the process, and which particular aspects of the participation process, the individual participants and the local context contribute to these changes. Our surveys of participants in almost identical online consultations in three German municipalities show that the participation process and its expected results have a sizeable effect on satisfaction with local political authorities and local regime performance. While most participants report at least slightly more positive perceptions that are mainly output-oriented, for some engagement with the process leads not to more, but in fact to less legitimacy. We find this to be the case both for those participants who remain silent and for those who participate intensively. Our results also confirm the important role of existing individual resources and context-related attitudes such as trust in and satisfaction with local (not national) politics. Finally, our analysis shows that online participation is able to enable constructive discussion, deliver useful results and attract people who would not have participated offline to engage.
Key findings
The participation processes we studied and to which citizens were invited by their respective councils do indeed have an influence on the attitudes of those who participate in such consultations.
For many of the participants, the positive effect that was hoped for does indeed occur: they are more positive about the local institutions (mayor, administration) and local politics as a whole. The decisive factor for the assessment is whether one expects local politics to take the citizens’ proposals seriously and act upon them. In other words, the result of the process is more important for attitudes than the process itself.
It is noteworthy that this holds true also for those who have rather negative views of local politics to begin with. However, previous experience with local politics also plays a role: those who already have a higher level of satisfaction and trust in the municipality are becoming more positive by participation.
At the same time, participation can also lead to less satisfaction. We were able to show this, on the one hand, for those who were intensively involved in the participation process and made a lot of proposals. On average, this group was less satisfied in the end, probably because their expectations of the impact of their efforts were disappointed. Those who did not actively participate but only visited the online procedure without making suggestions themselves were also more dissatisfied. These people were apparently mainly concerned about the fact that the process took place exclusively online.
Overall, however, our results show that such online participation processes not only enable constructive participation, but that they also reach additional groups: Almost half of the respondents would not have participated if the process had only been conducted with on-site formats requiring physical presence.
Publication
Escher, Tobias; Rottinghaus, Bastian (2023): Effects of online citizen participation on legitimacy beliefs in local government. Evidence from a comparative study of online participation platforms in three German municipalities. In: Policy & Internet, Artikel poi3.371. DOI: 10.1002/poi3.371.
On 25 & 26 October the three SÖF junior research groups with a focus on mobility met in Hannover to exchange insight from their current research, identify common themes and discuss possible future opportunities for collaboration.
In the meet the team series, we introduce a member of the research group every week to give an impression beyond the scientific work. For this purpose, our student assistant Philippe Sander asked us a few questions.
Today in the interview: Tobias. As political sociologist his research focuses in particular on the role of citizen participation for legitimacy beliefs and how these are related to the substantial “quality” of citizens’ contributions to such participation processes. In addition, he is leading the research group. More infos on his research are available here.
picture: Tilman Schenk
What inspired you to pursue a career in your research field, and how did you get started in your field?
I think it has always been important to me how people can determine their fate and how to ensure that societies agree on how they want to live together. That is why early on in my studies I was interested in political participation and its role in political decision-making. At the beginning of my research, the main focus was on the influence of the Internet. Many questions were still open at that time. One of them was, for example, whether more people would participate through these digital possibilities, or whether online participation could achieve anything at all. Meanwhile, the new media are no longer new and I’m pursuing other questions beyond that, but I’ve remained true to the topic of participation.
Can you describe your current research project and what you hope to achieve with it? What do you personally find the most interesting about it?
In our current research project, the fundamental question is how local authorities can succeed in making the transition to sustainable mobility and adapting to climate change. After all, mobility is a major factor for emissions. From my point of view, the complex issue of climate change and what we can do about it is not a technical question, but rather a social one. To be precise: How do we manage to do these things – which we know we have to do – in such a way that they are ecologically, socially and economically sustainable and accepted by the population?
How do you go about your research? What methods, theories or frameworks do you use?
Well, I think what’s exciting is that our research group works together with Sociology, Urban Planning and Computer Science in a very interdisciplinary way, and each discipline has its own theories and methods. In the field of participation research, the fundamental question is what function the participation of citizens actually has beyond elections. Of course, participatory theories of democracy provide different answers to this question than liberal or even elitist understandings of democracy. Furthermore, we deal a lot with the question of who participates at all and why, or rather why not. In my research, we are mainly relying on the Civic Voluntarism Model. Otherwise, I am primarily interested in the extent to which participation leads to greater acceptance of decisions and also of those responsible for the decision. We talk about legitimacy and work a lot with Easton, Scharpf and Norris.
Methodologically, the project is also quite exciting, because we work both quantitatively and qualitatively and try to combine both. In my research, we mainly work quantitatively, with standardized surveys and corresponding quantitative analysis methods.
What are some of the biggest challenges you face in your work and how do you overcome them?
That we always have to keep a balance between the actual research, the management of it and the rest of the self-management. In addition, a whole series of challenges arise when science and practice collide, for example in terms of time, because we are often dependent on the planning of the cities with which we work together. In the project itself, it’s extra special because we work with different disciplines. You have to find a common language there. That’s not always easy.
How do you stay on top of the latest trends and developments in your field?
For us as scientists this can be the direct exchange with colleagues, i.e. at conferences. Otherwise, I receive regular updates on the latest articles from journals that I read and that are relevant and pertinent to my topic. I consider this to be a very good way to gain insight into current topics, methods and debates that interest me.
How do you collaborate with other researchers or experts in your field to improve your projects?
I think it is important that we regularly gather feedback, such as at colloquia for dissertations or in workshops that we organize. In the process, we then also receive feedback from people outside our project. In addition, we have a scientific advisory board for our project that gives us valuable tips. In my opinion, it is primarily the constant exchange with others that is important. This can happen informally in the university environment, by meeting in the hallway and talking about some issues, or formally at conferences.
What impact do you hope your research will have on society or the field?
Personally, I consider climate change to be the greatest challenge facing humanity. From my perspective, it is less a technical problem and more a social problem that needs to be solved. We have, for the most part, the technology to do so, but fail to agree on the necessary measures, such as a speed limit. Ideally, our research will help identify a few aspects that are likely to help with this. But we may also find situations for which it turns out that citizen participation is not the right thing to do and other formats or means need to be explored. The big question is how to succeed in bringing about the transformation to more sustainability, and we are trying to provide a small piece of the puzzle.
Can you tell us about any interesting or meaningful experiences you had during your research?
What distinguishes us is our collaboration with practice. It is always exciting to step out of academic debates and be confronted with reality. This might also give new insights. As I said, it’s not always easy, but that’s what I really appreciate. Perhaps a bit more general, but what I also find an important experience: learning how nice it is when other people you accompanied at the beginning of their scientific career do a good job and that you perhaps had a certain part in helping them develop their potential.
What advice do you have for students and aspiring scientists just starting out in their careers?
The first question to ask yourself is: What interests me? The balance between openness and perseverance is important here. In other words, not blindly following trends and hastily dropping topics, but also not being resistant to advice and suggestions of others. The second is more of a formal thing. Academic research holds an incredible amount of possibilities. The upside is, you can always work, the downside is, you will always work: these thoughts and ideas regarding your research cannot be switched off. You have to be aware of that and decide for yourself if it fits with your personal plans in life.
Lastly, can you tell us a little about yourself outside of your work? What hobbies or interests do you pursue in your spare time, and how do they complement your research?
The topic of environmental protection is also one that accompanies me personally. To ask what we can do, and how we can perhaps also convince others to do a bit more than they are doing now. That‘s a nice connection between what is important to me personally and what I can do in my research. And that’s the way it should be. Apart from that, I have a family and can therefore rarely complain about boredom.
In her thesis for the MA Social Sciences: Social Structures and Democratic Governance at Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Maria Antonia Dausner has investigated the possibilities of pupil participation during the Covid-19-related school closures, focusing on an analysis of selected elementary schools in North Rhine-Westphalia.
